Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration | Requests | Motions Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:19, 27 November 2009 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits Trolls everywhere: request← Previous edit Revision as of 07:22, 27 November 2009 edit undoIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 edits The GodKing has opinedNext edit →
Line 629: Line 629:
:::] (]) 04:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC) :::] (]) 04:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
:::: Hi, Ikip; have a Happy Thanksgiving? Have I called you a troll, lately? You *are*. See you at RFAR. Sincerely, ] 04:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC) :::: Hi, Ikip; have a Happy Thanksgiving? Have I called you a troll, lately? You *are*. See you at RFAR. Sincerely, ] 04:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::As ], 10:15, 29 March 2008: "Firstly, I am not a sockpuppet, as White Cat has repeatedly alleged. He has asserted this many, many times and, quite frankly, I'm now viewing it as harassment." ] (]) 07:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


== Trolls everywhere == == Trolls everywhere ==

Revision as of 07:22, 27 November 2009

Comments by others

Moved from Arbitration enforcement page:

Request concerning Jack Merridew

User requesting enforcement
Ikip (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion#Indefinite_block_lifted_with_editing_restrictions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Stalking

Three editors who have accused Jack Merridew of stalking since Jack Merridew's unban (banned because of numerous sock puppets).

Jack's behavior below is identical, and in the case of Mr. Coleman and A Nobody worse than the stalking evidence that Cool Cat presented, in which arbitration unanimously found:

  1. "Davenbelle...monitored Cool Cat with the view to bringing problems he caused to the attention of the community. However, this has tipped over into effectively "wikistalking" or "hounding" Cool Cat, and so disrupting Misplaced Pages and discouraging his positive contributions." Passed 6-0.
  2. "Moby Dick has engaged in stalking or harassing behavior towards Cool Cat and Megaman Zero. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Evidence#User stalks and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Workshop#Bicycle. Passed 8 to 0.
  1. Stalking of Emmette Hernandez Coleman
  2. Stalking of A Nobody
  3. Stalking of Daedalus969

Stalking of Emmette Hernandez Coleman

Origin of stalking:

Mr. Merridew's twelve page, 3 month stalking, began because of User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman's minor edit on Jimbo Wales talk page, adding <span class="plainlinks"> </span> around another editors link.

Jack's response on User_talk:Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman: "...I've undone some dubious edits you've made..." 14:38, 26 May 2009.

2009 North Korean nuclear test:

User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman "Removing unnecessary invisible text, per WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. This makes reading the edit page easier." 12:27, 28 May 2009.
User:Jack Merridew, first edit to page: "Undid revision 292866724 by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) bypass redirect" 15:40, 28 May 2009.
User:Jack Merridew makes a total of four edits on 2009 North Korean nuclear test, last one, 15:52, 28 May 2009 and has not returned.

3rd Rock from the Sun:

User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: "Removing unnecessary invisible text, per WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. This makes reading the edit page easier." 21:10, 29 May 2009.
User:Jack Merridew: "bypass redirectes, tidy". 06:17, 30 May 2009.
User:Jack Merridew makes only one edit to 3rd Rock from the Sun, and has not returned.

Memory hole

User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: "Removing unnecessary invisible text, per WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. This makes reading the edit page easier." 06:25, 9 June 2009.
User:Jack Merridew: "tidy" 06:25, 9 June 2009.
User:Jack Merridew makes only one edit to the page. Mr. Merridew has not yet returned.

Talk:Sun

User:Jack Merridew: Adds "see also: Talk:Moon#Should the title be "Moon" or "Earth's Moon"" to the User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman's section "Should the title be "Sun" of "Earth's Sun". 06:33, 30 May 2009.
Only one edit ever done on Talk:Sun.

Talk:Moon STALKING AND HARASSMENT

User:Jack Merridew: First edit to Talk:Moon, mocking User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: "<joke>Well there's the possibility of Earth's Atlantic Ocean</joke> 06:30, 30 May 2009"
User:Jack Merridew: Second edit to Talk:Moon, "They must have a ’pedia, too; there are puppeteers involved! Please note that I've noticed a fair number of such AGF-testing fun-seeking debates initiated by Emmette. You might want to visit his talk page. 11:43, 30 May 2009.
User:Jack Merridew: Last edit on Talk:Moon, directed to User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: "User:SheffieldSteel/AGFAFAIR", (Assume Good Faith - as far as is reasonable) 14:09, 30 May 2009.

Misplaced Pages:Be bold

User:Jack Merridew "Reverted good faith edits by Emmette Hernandez Coleman; Direct link is best ;. (TW)" 06:21, 30 May 2009.
User:Jack Merridew makes only one edits to Misplaced Pages:Be bold to revert User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, and has not yet returned.

Colgate Clock (New Jersey)

User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: "Adding source. I am new at adding sources. I apologise if I did if incorrectly." 15:41, 30 May 2009
User:Jack Merridew: "Added {{nofootnotes}} tag to article. using Friendly"13:24, 31 May 2009.
User:Jack Merridew makes only one edit to the page, and has not returned.
User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman writes on User_talk:Jack_Merridew: Thanks again for your improvement to Colgate Clock (New Jersey). I have added sources for 3 previously un-sourced articles...but probably not that good of a job. They could probably use a template similar to the one you put on Colgate Clock (New Jersey) so someone will turn my not that good of a job into a good job... 11:02, 17 June 2009.
User:Jack Merridew response: "please don't be so obvious." 11:36, 17 June 2009

Misplaced Pages:File namespace

User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman "Redirected page to Misplaced Pages:Namespace#File" 20:50, 10 June 2009.
User:Jack Merridew "better to match Misplaced Pages:Image namespace, methinks". 05:50, 15 June 2009.
User:Jack Merridew makes only one edits to Misplaced Pages:File namespace to revert User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, and has not yet returned.

Template:Namespaces

User:Jack Merridew first edit, reverting User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman changes 22:09, 9 June 2009 , 20:58, 10 June 2009 : "restore linking via 'namespace' targets as bypassing them is not helpful here (encapsulation); tidy table, too" 05:22, 15 June 2009.
User:Jack Merridew makes only two edits to the page, and has not returned.

Talk:Main Page: STALKING AND HARASSMENT

User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: First edit, 09:21, 20 Jun 2009, section: "Should we add "For technical reasons, # redirects here see number sign".
User:Jack Merridew: First edit, 11:11, 21 Jun 2009, section: "Should we add "For technical reasons, # redirects here see number sign".
Mr. Meriddew's first edit on this page directly addresses Mr. Coleman, bringing up an argument with Mr. Coleman on Mr. Coleman's talk page that has nothing to do with the Main space page:
"See here: %s, Emmette. ]? 11:11, 21 June 2009.
Mr. Merriddew's second edit mocks Mr. Coleman, mentioning another page which Mr. Merriddew stalked Mr. Coleman too.
You're missing that Emmette *likes* parodies of debates. Think we should move Moon to The Moon. 13:37, 21 June 2009.
User:Franamax: Jack, can you please back off User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman? Do you regularly edit this talk page, or are you following the editor about? 20:06, 21 June 2009.
User:Jack Merridew: I have taken an interest in main pages of projects recently that has nothing to do with Emmette...It seems to me that Emmette *wants* my attention; he keeps that thread on his talk page rolling and has repeatedly pinged me on mine. 05:00, 22 June 2009.
Stalking after User:Franamax's warning.

Misplaced Pages:Dick

User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman "Redirected page to Misplaced Pages:Don't be a dick" 10:56, 31 July 2009.
User:Jack Merridew 04:47, 4 August 2009 "traditional; change this and you'll be referred to it ;"
User:Jack Merridew makes only one edits to Misplaced Pages:Dick to revert User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, and has not yet returned.

Misplaced Pages:Don't be a dick

User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman "Updateing shortcut box, removeing WP:PENIS, adding M:DICK and M:DBAD" 11:00, 31 July 2009.
User:Jack Merridew reverts User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman "tidy" 04:41, 4 August 2009.
User:Jack Merridew makes only one edits to Misplaced Pages:Don't be a dick to revert User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, and has not yet returned.


Stalking of A Nobody

Origin of stalking of A Nobody:

A Nobody was an avid supporter of the ban of Jack Merridew and his several sock puppets in 2008.
  1. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Fences and windows A Nobody votes to oppose. 13:43, 17 November 2009.
    Mr. Merridew votes to support. 01:03, 18 November 2009.
    Last Requests for adminship Jack Merridew partipated in, 03:43, 17 October 2009.
  2. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe (2nd nomination) A Nobody comments at 15:06, 19 November 2009.
    3 minutes later, Jack Merridew votes delete. 15:09, 19 November 2009.
    Last AFD comment Jack made was on 13 November 2009.
  3. Talk:Comparison of vampire traits A Nobody comments. 00:16, 16 November 2009.
    Comparison of Vampire Traits "cut Count Chocula as pure trolling; no, I didn't look to see who put it in" 03:38, 16 November 2009.
  4. A Nobody writes on Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for Deletion the section "Some ideas for reform" 17 September 2009.
    Mr. Merridew writes this in A Nobody's section:
    "How about if an extremely disruptive editor who has involved himself in a great many AfDs for the last three years with the intent of precluding as many delete outcomes as he possibly can and who is the editor primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism currently gridlocking the entire process were to permanently recuse from commenting in deletion discussions and from editing articles being discussed there by others? This would be a great improvement." 18 September 2009.
    User:Chillum deletes comments by Jack, stating: "some disagreement between users has nothing to do with AfD. Removing off topic discussion, revert and talk to me on my talk page if you disagree" 18 September 2009.
    Final warning to Jack Merridew by Fram:
    "How about you don't ever comment on A Nobody again or get indefinitely blocked again? With your past, you have absolutely zero authority to suggest that someone else is "extremely disruptive" and "primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism". You have been warned before to stay away from A Nobody. Consider this a last warning." 18 September 2009.
    AfD | A Nobody | Jack Merridew
    Alien Shaplay | 20:23, 12 August 2009 | 05:37, 13 August 2009
    Hapes Consortium | 17:11, 10 August 2009 05:32, 13 August 2009
    Todd Williams | 15:39, 12 August 2009 | 05:26, 13 August 2009
    In each case, Merridew is specifically responding to A Nobody's comment directly below A Nobody:
    • "Non-notable" is not a compelling reason for deletion on a paperless encyclopedia.
    By writing:
    • Non-Notabledelete.
  5. A Nobody argues that a series of articles should be kept in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin. 17:59, 7 July 2009.
    Jack Merridew puts Tom Nash, one of the Hugo Austin articles up for deletion. 12:09, 9 July 2009.
    Jack Merridew modifies one of the Hugo Austin series templates, "fix shitty template" 14:13, 12 July 2009.
    Jack Merridew modifies one of the Hugo Austin articles, Chloe Cammeniti in the summary he states "Articles for Ridicule" Unknown time.
    Jack Merridew modifies one of the Hugo Austin series templates, in the summary he states: "be nice if editors knew how to edit" 15:02, 12 July 2009.
    Jack Merridew writes on A Nobody's page, the first posting Merridew had made on A Nobody's page since 10:33, 27 April 2009, on 04:26, 13 July 2009.:
    == attention-seeking ==
    You should not make such attention-seeking posts — you'll get it. Personally, I think your username is appropriate.
    Mr. Merridew was refering to what A Nobody added to his user page:
    For example, anyone who has ever referred to me as something other than my username or by some insulting play on my username is not welcome here, barring they apologized and made good faith amends
  6. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom) A nobody comments in AFD.
    Jack Merridew responds: "U can haz Badger-ring…" 07:35, 27 April 2009
    Note: As A Nobody wrote in the ANI which was going on at the same time:
    The last two RfAs (Foxy_Loxy_3 and Kww) comments in and the only two for the past 8 or so days are in ones after and about .
  7. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Foxy_Loxy_3 A nobody opposes, 02:54, 11 April 2009.
    Jack Merridew's first post on RFA: "re A Nobody; Bad Faith and Battleground. Jeers" 09:41, 11 April 2009.
  8. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_2 A nobody opposes. 01:49, 6 April 2009.
    Jack Merridew supports three hours later:"I note the usual argument from A Nobody, below; this is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND...Advancing hypothetical concerns as cause for opposition, is bad faith." 04:47, 6 April 2009.
  9. A Nobody makes 9 edits to List of Buffyverse objects. 03:31, 9 April 2009 to 03:57, 9 April 2009.
    Jack Merridew !votes delete in AFD, "Delete — An indiscriminate list of trivia; besides, her tits didn't make teh list" 06:10, 12 April 2009.
  10. A Nobody makes 4 edits to Battle of Mars. 07:45, 5 March 2009.
  11. A Nobody !votes delete Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chihuahua heights. 02:36, 2 April 2009.
    Jack Merridew !votes keep, 40 minutes later. 03:16, 2 April 2009.
  12. Jack_Merridew writes a review of A Nobody on Misplaced Pages:Editor review/A Nobody
    This is the only editor review which Jack Merridew ever responded to in all of 2009, possibly ever:
    "Disruptive user. Previously (Sept '08) got into trouble for disruptive and badgering behaviour at AfDs, was facing an imminent User RfC, and invoked a right to vanish and promptly resumed editing with another account and as an anon. Blocked. A month later, returned under a new name (this one). User continues disruptive participation in AfD and policy discussion ever-seeking to lower inclusion standards and demonize those who do not share his extreme views. Long history of bad faith at RFA." 09:04, 8 March 2009. A Nobody reverts the edits and an edit war ensues.
    Jack Merridew writes on Casliber's page to A Nobody:
    "I am open to working with you in the future, but for the moment, I (and others) believe disengaging is best." 06:30, 10 March 2009.
    Arbcom Casliber writes to Jack Merridew, refering to A Nobody:
    Please leave you know who alone, and leave off allusions to you know what. WP is a big place. 20:11, 24 March 2009.
    Seven minutes after A Nobody's fourth edit, Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. 07:52, 5 March 2009.
  13. A Nobody makes 3 edits to Battle of Saturn's Rings. 07:46, 5 March 2009.
    Seven minutes after A Nobody's third edit, Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. 07:53, 5 March 2009.
  14. A nobody makes an edit to First Robotech War. 22:03, 3 March 2009.
    Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. 07:52, 5 March 2009.
  15. A nobody makes an edit to Second Robotech War. 22:03, 3 March 2009.
    Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. 07:54, 5 March 2009.
  16. A nobody makes an edit to Third Robotech War. 22:01, 3 March 2009.
    Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. "Delete Cruft..." 07:54, 5 March 2009.
  17. A Nobody !votes in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Valerie Gray. 21:15, 6 February 2009.
    Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD, "loved the 'In-story information' section of the infobox; amounts to breadcrumbs to follow to find more cruft." 08:34, 7 February 2009.

Stalking Daedalus969
  1. First edit on Carol Kane and Jack Merridew reverts the edit of User talk:Daedalus969. 8:13, 25 May 2009, restoring the edit of an indefinetly blocked sock. Blocked at 04:25, 25 May 2009.
    Messages User talk:Daedalus969: See this, by me, and this, by someone else. Which is more important, whacking the naughty, or valid edits? 08:13, 25 May 2009.
  2. Daedalus969 withdraws Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Clash_of_Arms. 01:58, 27 June 2009.
    Jack Merridew closes AFD. Edit: {{afd top}} '''nomination withdrawn''' 27 June 2009
  3. Jack Merridew closes Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eduardo Chirinos AFD, after User:Daedalus969 closes it withdrawn. 05:54, 19 June 2009.
  4. User talk:Daedalus969: Jack Merridew joins conversation about what is wrong with User:Daedalus969's talk page: "Not surprising; there are a fair number of issues in there." Relevant page:
  5. User:Daedalus969 at Misplaced Pages:Civility/Poll: "Stop stalking me. You've been following me around , and now you're just trying to get me in trouble by drawing lines where none exist. I like hummingbirds, and no one knows this because I usually don't share the things I like. The humming bird is there because I like it. If you have a problem with my behavior, then quit the accusations, and open up some thread somewhere, not here. Either ANI or RFC, otherwise, stay the hell away from me." 5 July 2009. Relevant sections:
  6. User:Daedalus969 at Misplaced Pages:Civility/Poll: "Seriously, what the hell? It's a hummingbird. Get over it. Get over this that little thing you have about me, and leave me alone. This is harassment, there is absolutely nothing wrong with placing that bird on my page. I like birds, I'm a bird lover. Would you like to see pictures of my four cockatiels? What the hell is it going to take to get you to leave me alone? An ANI thread, a block?" 08:41, 5 July 2009.
  7. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents which Daedalus969 created, Jack Merridew wrote: "WP:DEADHORSE, anyone? Mebbe you need to let this go? 23 May 2009.
Personal attacks, WP:BATTLE, harassment, bad faith
  1. Against A Nobody
    Jack Merridew's repeated use of A Nobody's previous user names
    Jack Merridew's bad faith and abusive tone against A Nobody
  2. Against Emmette Hernandez Coleman
  3. Against Daedalus969
  4. Jack Merridew's other personal attacks
  5. Jack Merridew's other disruptive behavior

Against A Nobody
  1. At User_talk:A_Nobody: "You should not make such attention-seeking — you'll get it. Personally, I think your username is appropriate." 13 July 2009 (Empahsis my own)
  2. User_talk:Jack_Merridew: "troll elsewhere" erasing A Nobody's comment. 5 March 2009
  3. User_talk:Protonk: wasted a day of my life yesterday. 14 April 2009.
  4. Regarding A Nobody at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Foxy_Loxy_3: "I just looked up WP:HYPOCRISY and found that it is another shortcut to there, which I had not noticed before. He has gone well beyond the pale here." 12 April 2009.
  5. At A Nobody at User_talk:John_Vandenberg: Misplaced Pages:Not here to build an encyclopedia 3 August 2009.
  6. To A Nobody at WP:ANI: "This isn't about 'fiction', it's about inappropriate articles and my new ]".
  7. To A Nobody at Misplaced Pages:Articles for_deletion/Virginia Lewis_(10th_Kingdom): "U can haz Badger-ring… I'll go find it sometime." 27 April 2009.
  8. About A Nobody at User_talk:Jack_Merridew: "I'll have to find the Badger-ring image/award Will made." 27 April 2009.
  9. User_talk:John_Vandenberg: "Waa! John, he's stalking me. @; grow up. You've failed to agree to any of the proposals John has put forward. You also made lame comments in those "discussions" — you troll AfD discussions and this is why you need to be removed from the AfD realm (including the editing of articles at AfD)...." 02:26, 14 August 2009.
  10. To A Nobody at WP:ANI: "Seems that he's only interested in kicking-up more drama, which needs to stop. At this point I'd be on solid ground making a harassment case against him."
  11. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Foxy_Loxy_3 "comment on bad faith and battleground-mode re A Nobody"; re A Nobody: "Bad Faith and Battleground. Jeers" 11 April 2009.
  12. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_2: "I note the usual argument from A Nobody, below; this is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND." 6 April 2009.
  13. User_talk:Jack_Merridew ...the barriers to editing here are quite low. If Pixelface, and others such as yourself, don't want to be the subjects of my comments, be better editors... 14 January 2009.

Jack Merridew's repeated use of A Nobody's previous user names
  1. User_talk:Jack_Merridew, Using A Nobody's alleged old user name: "reply to Liz" 14 January 2009.
  2. WP:ANI Regarding A Nobody: "I will refrain from refering to his prior username as much as is possible." 13 April 2009.
  3. WP:ANI: So, I commented on Le Grand Nobody's actions at Foxy Loxy's RfA and suggested he should be blocked and that * Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/A Nobody was due. 12 April 2009.
  4. Le Grand Nobody is way overdue for a User RFC, methinks. 10:13, 23 March 2009.
  5. "Pumpkin, I am focused on editing in a wider range of areas; see?"04:59, 10 December 2008. Refering to User:Pumpkin King

Jack Merridew's bad faith and abusive tone against A Nobody
  1. User_talk:Casliber/Archive_23#Moon_of_Pejeng: A Nobody starts the article Moon of Pejeng after Jack's recommendation to create it to Calisber. on User_talk:Casliber, A Nobody writes: "As seen by the blue links above, I have started the article."
    Jack responds: "Seems A Someone is monitoring my posts and assuming bad faith."
    Link is to User:A Nobody: "Serious editors never say to delete something because it is "cruft."… "A good way to determine who is here for the good of the project and who is trying to adhere to a biased agenda is to see who still wants to delete something when sources are presented to them." 6 March 2009.
  2. A Nobody, welcoming back Jack at User_talk:Jack_Merridew: "...Also, as Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Learn from the mistakes of others, life's too short to make them all yourself," i.e. I have found that editing in new areas that I did not previously edit in seems to get positive feedback, whereas old whatever you want to call them have a tendency to be well you know in the areas I used to focus on. 16:54, 9 December 2008.
    Jack's response to A Nobody:
    "Pumpkin, I am focused on editing in a wider range of areas; see? I have not been 'gone', I have better than 10,000 edits while on holiday from en:wp; see?" 04:59, 10 December 2008.
    User:A Nobody: "Jack, please do not use any variation or allusion to my old username (please see the note on the top of my talk page why). Anyway, yes, I see that you have been doing some other good stuff and I believe that is why you are back. I am hoping to help Durova bring some rock articles out of stub status and maybe even get some good article contributions as well as my usual welcoming and rescue efforts. All the best! 00:51, 11 December 2008"
    "I've not missed your history of late; let me offer a bit of advice: read WP:TEND and WP:DISRUPT. You really need to accept that your approach to AfDs and RfAs is problematic. The wiki does discriminate against WP:NOT#INFO all the time. Judging an admin candidate solely on your perception of their views on inclusion criteria is a colossal assumption of bad faith." 11 December 2008.
  3. Bad faith accusation: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 3, Jack Merridew suggests that A Nobody should be blocked for opposing Admin candidates:
    "Note that he has basically admitted that much of his reason for opposing is his interactions with third parties, his "opponents". Kevin is not being judged here, an entire block of "editors" is being cast as demons. Time to block for cause." 06:29, 12 April 2009.

Against Emmette Hernandez Coleman
  1. User_talk:Jack_Merridew: "rm trlng." 29 May 2009.
  2. User_talk:Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman: "You’ve touched the root issue here; taken too far, that is trolling. See: Misplaced Pages:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass."
  3. User_talk:Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman:
    Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman writes: I am not a troll, what makes you think I am? 15:51, 27 May 2009
    Jack Merridew's response: Oh, gosh; threads like this? 16:05, 27 May 2009.
  4. User_talk:Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman: minnow "Like t0tal fa1L." 28 May 2009
  5. Removed comments from User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman "rm noise" 30 May 2009.

Wikipedia_talk:External_links:

  1. "The larger issue here is what User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman is up to. I noticed him a few days ago having an inappropriate interest in Jimbo’s userpage, followed by this plainlinks nonsense — which he may have picked-up from me, as I do use it in some of my posts. Looking over his talk page and past contribs, I see a long pattern of mildly disruptive editing, and the regular admonishment of those who raise concerns with him as being “too harsh”. So, Emmette seem to be ] here and folks might want to step back and review the bigger picture, including our chat on his talk page. Emmette, ]" 04:36, 27 May 2009.
    User:Jack Merridew regarding User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman mistakenly asking another editor to sign his comments: "and cutting-in like that is disruptive and just plain rude" 03:47, 28 May 2009.
    User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: "When debating, it it usually best to attack the argument, not the arguer." 17:28, 27 May 2009.
    User:Jack Merridew: Think of it as a holistic approach. 03:47, 28 May 2009.

Against Daedalus969
  1. On User Talk:Josette: "little shite like ." 27 May 2009.
  2. To User:Daedalus969 on User talk:Jack Merridew: "rm trolling; take a hint, I already achived that to history" 31 May 2009.
  3. On Misplaced Pages:Civility/Poll asking editors to click and watch Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Daedalus969: "Another subtle form of baiting: see here, by User:Daedalus969...Anyone seriously believe “A humming bird on my back porch, balancing perfectly on a hook” isn’t baiting? “I don't bait people”? As Lar says, it's often subjective, and I'll add that it's all about context. It stretches credulity to assume that you added a hummingbird to your user page shortly after your dispute with the two others in good faith; the caption ices it. For future reference, see here." 5 July 2009.
    User:Rockpock at Misplaced Pages:Civility/Poll: Some might interpret making an example of Daedalus969, here, as "baiting" him. The problem with "baiting" vs. discussion is that it involves a serious lack of good faith. Even if Daedalus969 was "baiting" with his hummingbird picture, so what? What harm is he doing in adding a picture to his own user page? If you or Bishonen or Giano infer some grievous insult in this, then just ignore it and no harm has been done... 18:16, 5 July 2009.
  4. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech: "Bad Idea — others, and now I are attempting to sort the mess out. Have a minnow." 31 May 2009. Re: what Daedalus969 did: "I have reformatted the oppose and support sections to display numbers instead of bullets, so that the number of opposes and supports can be easily viewed." Daedalus969 wrote: "attempt at formatting so one can see how many opposes there are, feel free to revert, I won't argue" Mr. Merridew himself characteristically reformatted several editors comments in the WP:ANI several times himself during this edit and before this edit:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech RE: WP:TROUT: "if you *want* the big fish, you have to impress me more...You want the full-sized fish? You started this mess by refatoring in a inappropriate manner. You don't get to tromp all over Tokyo. Sneers" 31 May 2009.
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech referring to WP:DEADHORSE: "Ya, you refactored the formatting: bad idea, disruptive; all the rest follows from that. Please don't get the idea that I consider you much of a problem; you only warranted a minnow, after all. I already offered you a link about all the shrill cries for Good Faith — which seems to be the core argument for keeping Doug underfoot. AGF has limits. There's another essay you need to grok; it concerns patches of ground that contain traces of equine DNA and fragments of sticks. There's surely a handy shortcut for it. Try typing a few of the obvious ones into the search box. Jeers" 31 May 2009.
  5. Bad faith accusation:: "Anyone seriously believe “A humming bird on my back porch, balancing perfectly on a hook” isn’t baiting? “I User:Daedalus969 don't bait people”? As Lar says, it's often subjective, and I'll add that it's all about context. It stretches credulity to assume that you added a hummingbird to your user page shortly after your dispute with the two others in good faith; the caption ices it. For future reference, see here" 5 July 2009.

Jack Merridew's other personal attacks
  • Jack Merridew warned about calling other editors trolls by Ikip 21:10, 15 August 2009.
  • Jack Merridew warned about signing with "Sneers" by Lar 16:45, 31 May 2009.
  1. Comparison of Vampire Traits "cut Count Chocula as pure trolling; no, I didn't look to see who put it in" 03:38, 16 November 2009.
  2. Comparison of Vampire Traits "rm, again; it's still trolling for lulz -- *unencyclopaedic*, like the rest of this 'article' -- Sneers" 05:04, 16 November 2009.
  3. RE: User:JarlaxleArtemis "I will vigorously oppose D&D's Notable Dick, if necessary..." 10 December 2008.
  4. ...Those who seek to disrupt by simply being vandals are straightforward to deal with. Even dick-less wonders like Grawp are easy enough to deal with and serve to force wiki to mature in order to deal with them...
  5. To User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: "Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars and m:Don't be a dick." 14:33, 7 August 2009. Resulting in: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive69#Jack_Merridew
  6. List_of_fictional_cats "tidy; the anons doing the 'it' cat thang are really here to mess with such tidying; likely related to Treecats and List of Treecats being deleted. i.e. the troll with the very small, penis"
  7. "Too many DougsTechs currently".
  8. To User:Shemeska: "troll somewhere else" 8 January 2009.
  9. On User_talk:Collectonian to User:Craverguy: "I really have no idea why someone would spend two years of their life on such an endeavor; that is beyond the fanaticism at the root of the word 'fan' and I expect there's a large dollop of hyperbole included. This is a great project, but it is discriminating. My suggestion is to redirect your efforts into areas that have long term value. 4 April 2009.
  10. RE: Now desoyped User:A Man in Black's arbcom which mentioned the "Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon." attack page.
    Mr. Merridew writes on User:A Man in Black's page: "Got stamps? I had these laying about from last year" Referring to the "Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch" stamps. 24 May 2009
    Previous edit mentions the "mail Ikip to the moon" edit. 24 May 2009
    Previous edit, adds: "Stamps, lots of stamps" to user page. 24 May 2009
  11. User_talk:Drew_R._Smith "Jeers". 27 May 2009 The_Little_Prince: "rv absurdity"
  12. To Debresser: "Get over yourself" 20 April 2009. "please do something useful" 20 April 2009.
  13. Refering to User:JarlaxleArtemis at User talk:Jack Merridew: "The needs to get laid. If he thinks he's annoyed me, he's way off; he's kinda fun to beat-up on ;)...The D&D crowd needs to quite clearly disown their patron vandal. this one ("Giving him the Grawp treatment seems to be the only way to get anything done") amount to an endorsement of such disruptive behavior. As the meme goes, he's got over 9,000 cockpuppets;" 11 December 2008.
  14. WP:ANI: "Possible Featured Article issue. WP run out of FAs? Seriously, pick something else. The m:dicks are going to run amok; so can this per WP:DENY. Ruin their fun.
    OK, I know this will go ahead, so I'll watch the shit hit the fan tomorrow. Someone keep count of the sleepers flushed out; bonus points for any admin sleepers found." 13 January 2009.
  15. User:Dream Focus: "This, however, is an encyclopedia, not a porn site or fan site. Misplaced Pages discriminates against content all the time per Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information; deal with it." 21 March 2009.
  16. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction) : "Alas, poor Yorick… now needs watching for the pointy-minded. Oddjob certainly seem well covered in that list, so I see no issue with that redirect. Figwit is an excellant example of fanwank — an EILF, it would seem." 12 January 2009.
  17. On indefinitely banned User_talk:Frei_Hans's page: This unblock request has been reviewed by a sockpuppet who found it hilarious. ...Jack Merridew, sockpuppet First Class. 10 July 2009
  18. To User: SatuSuro at User_talk:Jack_Merridew "Speak in a less obscure voice or I'll simply ignore you." 7 January 2009.
  19. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction) RE: Fiction survey 2009: "lulz" Move to User:Pixelface/Fiction Survey 2009 draft and ignore. 12 January 2009.
  20. "Well, Pixelface's byzantine survey is being ignored, which is what I suggested. He's trucked that beast before and gotten the same result. I really don't see where I've commented on his character; I certainly have commented on his behavior and ideas (both poor)." 14 January 2009.
  21. User_talk:Pixelface: "trout" template. 21 February 2009

Jack Merridew's other disruptive behavior
  • Giving suspected sock User:JoãoMiguel a barnstar, "for great justice and epic lulz" "For this amazing feat." referring to what Connolley wrote: "JM is to be congratulated. On only his 8th edit, he makes a near perfectly formed AN3 report (something, alas, that many more experienced editors fail to do)."
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)
Warnings
  1. ANI and Wikiquette alerts
  2. Warnings regarding A Nobody
  3. Warnings regarding Pixelface
  4. Warning regarding Emmette Hernandez Coleman
  5. Warnings regarding Daedalus969

ANI and Wikiquette alerts
  1. A Nobody
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive530#Wikistalking_and_harassment_by_User:Jack_Merridew
  2. Daedalus969
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive550#User:Jack_Merridew_and_User:Daedalus969 created by User:Daedalus969. 5 July 2009. Diffs history:
    Mr. Merridew's unapologetic response: "Daedalus is a rather central figure in the whole Giano/Bishonen/Civility issue of the last — what? — six-weeks? He should not be surprised that he is getting some attention and given the circumstances that much of it is negative." 5 July 2009.
  3. Other editors
    Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Jack_Merridew

Warnings regarding A Nobody
  1. User:John Vandenberg after Jack called Fram a stalker and hounder:
    "Jack, your last few comments and edit summaries on this page are not helpful; you should avoid commenting on other users, especially people who you don't like." 10:17, 20 November 2009.
  2. User:Fram at User talk:John Vandenberg:
    "So anyone still believes that is not following A Nobody around, when the only AfD comments in is one A Nobody is heavily editing, the only RfA edits is one A Nobody opposes, and one of the five last articles edited is one where A Nobody had commented on the talk page only 3 hours before? That's three out of Jack Merridew's last eight visited pages where he commented very shortly after A Nobody had edited them..." 15:36, 19 November 2009.
  3. Final warning to Jack Merridew by admin Fram:
    "How about you don't ever comment on A Nobody again or get indefinitely blocked again? With your past, you have absolutely zero authority to suggest that someone else is "extremely disruptive" and "primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism". You have been warned before to stay away from A Nobody. Consider this a last warning." 18 September 2009
  4. "Jack Merridew, stop commenting on A Nobody, just leave him completely and utterly alone. There are more than enough editors around who will comment on him or his actions when he goes too far. But you are definitely not the one to be doing this. Drop the comments, drop the attitude, or risk a lengthy block for disruption. A Nobody needs a thicker skin, but there's no need for you to put needles in it anyway." 27 April 2009
  5. User:DGG in WP:ANI Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew subsection:
    "Jack has now placed an AfD vote on two separate articles which A Nobody had previously placed a rescue template." then , and then I see he's right when he said he had no intention of abiding by editing restrictions suggested here. Given the context and timing, he seems to be ignoring Kww's very sensible advice." 09:26, 14 April 2009.
  6. User:SB_Johnny:
    "I think the best way to go is for the two of you to just try to avoid each other for a while without making a big statement about how you want to avoid each other." 15 April 2009.
  7. "You know the best course of action is to stay away from , even if that means only avoiding him in face to face (as it were) encounters. ...Another thing that you have to realize is that you really are operating on a short leash. An unbanning w/ conditions kind up puts you in a very specific set of restrictions that most editors don't have to deal with. You know that, so I won't belabor the point. Just steer clear of trouble, don't try to make jokes with or about him and things will come out ok." 14 April 2009.
  8. User:Kww in WP:ANI Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew subsection:
    Referring to Jack Merridew Pointedly tagging Oakdale,_Texas_(Wishbone_TV_series) with the rescue tag and adding a message to A Nobody's talk page, which mediator Casliber removed,, then warned Jack Merridew, "Please leave you know who alone, and leave off allusions to you know what."
    User:Kww:
    "I agree that this is clearly an intentional misuse of a template with the intent of causing trouble. I'd have no objection to reinstating Jack's ban on that basis." 02:39, 13 April 2009.
  9. User:Treasury tag:
    "...one thing that is obvious from the last three comments alone, is that A Nobody doesn't like you referring to him by his old username. And you still seem to be doing it. There's no reason to; he's perfectly accountable, with redirects and rename logs etc. - and if it upsets him, please just don't." 15:55, 12 April 2009.
  10. "JM isn't blameless here, I've contemplating blocking or waring him for goading PF a few times, but this needs to stop." 22:39, 30 March 2009.
  11. User:Casliber:
    "Please leave you know who alone, and leave off allusions to you know what. WP is a big place." 24 March 2009
  12. User:Hiding at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction):
    (L)et us recognise that ], and ignore hyperbole which at worst can be seen as disruptive, against which certain users are ]. 10 February 2009.
    Response from Mr. Merridew: "Ya, right; defending the project against a flood of worthless articles is not disruptive." 10 February 2009.
  13. User:Hiding at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)/Archive_48#This_isn.27t_about_fiction:
    The ends have never justified the means on Misplaced Pages. Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper, repeatedly disregarding other editors' explanations for their edits, campaigning to drive away productive contributors and generally creating an atmosphere of hostility are considered disruptive. Please tone your language down and respect other people and their opinions even if you disagree with them. 10 February 2009.
    Response from Mr. Merridew: "Balderdash. My tone is just fine. I respect reasonable people and reasonable arguments. 12:31, 11 February 2009.
  14. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Pixelface, Mr. Merridew wrote:
    "A lack of response amounts to contempt for the community." 10 January 2009
    At User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3#Less_than_civility warning by User:Randomran in response to contempt comment:
    "It's bad to bring criticisms of an editor into discussions about content or guidelines, because it turns Misplaced Pages into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. What's done is done. Moving forward, just try to avoid making talk page discussion into an ad hominem criticism or mockery. If somebody has a bad idea, criticize the idea itself. Leave the editor's character off the table -- even if the community has sanctioned them for their behavior." 14 January 2009.
    User:Randomran:
    "Contempt for one editor is only slightly better than contempt for the community. If you think Pixelface has bad ideas, then just say so as a matter of fact. And in general, if you can't remain WP:civil with those you disagree with, then don't respond at all. The RFC/U with Pixelface is in progress, so let's not turn other discussions into a WP:BATTLEGROUND by making snippy remarks towards him." 14 January 2009.
    User:Randomran:
    "Two wrongs don't make a right. Pixelface is being dealt with, and hopefully he'll learn his lesson. If he doesn't learn his lesson, sniping back at him isn't the appropriate response, even if he started it. If he should start up again, everything you need to know is at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution#For_incivility. Otherwise, try to focus on content rather than editors." 14 January 2009.
    At User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3#Less_than_civility warning by User:A Nobody: "Jack, this is Misplaced Pages, a volunteer project, not a court of law. Volunteers are not required to comment anywhere. Neither Randomran nor I excuse incivility by anyone...If you dislike someone and think they are "ignorable" than you can do that without actually saying something, which is what ignoring actually is. Commenting in a mocking fashion just raises tensions and it distracts from the hard work efforts several editors are undertaking on that WP:FICTION talk page to try to come to a compromise after litterally years of disputes."
    User:A Nobody:
    "Jack, such comments and edit summaries as what you have here are rather unhelpful if not mocking of another user. It is unseemly to allege someone has "contempt for the community" and to then go ahead and dismiss that editor when he makes what looks like a good faith and constructive suggestion. Look at how say Masem and Drilnoth replied, i.e. there are ways to acknowledge a good faith effort to contribute and say you don't think it's a good idea without resorting to a more mocking tone that only escalates disputes and that again is out of place if at the same time you are trying to criticize that particular editor for his own behavior." 14 January 2009.
    Mr. Merridew's response User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3#Less_than_civility: "Pixelface certainly does have Bad Ideas — that's a fact. If I ever see good faith from him, I'll acknowledge it. He is largely ignorable and definitely risible." 14 January 2009.
  15. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pixelface: "While it is abundantly clear that repeatedly reverting policy pages against consensus is disruptive and constitutes edit warring, it is NOT VANDALISM. Please, please, please do not revert his changes w/ no edit summary or with a summary like "rvv" or "vandalism" or anything like that. See WP:VAND#NOT for more information. No matter how pernicious he is, so long as he is an editor in relatively good standing with a good faith belief that the policy doesn't read the way it should, his edits aren't vandalism. That doesn't mean don't revert them. It means revert them with an informative edit summary that doesn't mischaracterize the edit. Thanks. 05:32, 31 December 2008.
    User:Jack Merridew's response: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pixelface: "Yes, I should have used a better edit summary." Maaf. 31 December 2008.
  16. User:Lar: "Hi... I strongly suggest you leave reverting Moulton to others...at least for now anyway. Your best course of action (after coming off a recent indef block) is to stay away from all drama as much as possible. Being involved with Giano is a high drama activity regardless of what "side" you are on... it's MAD in there if you ask me." 16:29, 14 December 2008.
    User:Casliber: "Yep, I can vouch for that". 14 December 2008.
  17. User:Casliber about Misplaced Pages:Plot: This sort of fun and games doesn't look so good so soon after an unban. 31 December 2008.
    Mr. Merridew's response: " Basically they popped up on my watchlist and it seemed my duty to undo the disruption. This isn't 'fun and games' — he's disruptive." 31 December 2008.

Warnings regarding Pixelface
  1. Jack Merridew writes:
    " lack of response amounts to contempt for the community." 14:37, 10 January 2009.
    A Nobody:
    "It is unseemly to allege someone has "contempt for the community" and to then go ahead and dismiss that editor when he makes what looks like a good faith and constructive suggestion...there are ways to acknowledge a good faith effort to contribute and say you don't think it's a good idea without resorting to a more mocking tone that only escalates disputes and that again is out of place if at the same time you are trying to criticize that particular editor for his own behavior." 19:06, 13 January 2009.
    Randomran:
    "Contempt for one editor is only slightly better than contempt for the community. If you think Pixelface has bad ideas, then just say so as a matter of fact. And in general, if you can't remain WP:civil with those you disagree with, then don't respond at all. The RFC/U with Pixelface is in progress, so let's not turn other discussions into a WP:BATTLEGROUND by making snippy remarks towards him." 22:40, 13 January 2009.
    Jack Merridew's response in edit summary:
    "O RLY?"
    From O RLY?: "The phrase "O RLY?" ("Oh, really?") is typically used in a sarcastic or sardonic manner, often in response to a statement that the speaker feels is obvious, or blatantly false and/or self-contradictory."
    Randomran:
    "...try to avoid making talk page discussion into an ad hominem criticism or mockery. If somebody has a bad idea, criticize the idea itself. Leave the editor's character off the table -- even if the community has sanctioned them for their behavior." 07:34, 14 January 2009.

Warning regarding Emmette Hernandez Coleman
  1. User:Franamax: "Jack, can you please back off User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman? Do you regularly edit this talk page, or are you following the editor about?" 20:06, 21 June 2009.
  2. User:Franamax: "Hi Jack, can you please back off this user for a while? I've noted that of the last 5000 edits to Talk:Main Page, you have precisely two. Combine that with your statement/threat to that they would "go on your watchlist", the fact that your comments appeared in response to a thread EHC started, and the unproductive tenor of your comments - well, I'm sure there's no need for me to start using any alphagettis I can pick out of the soup...Please don't continue in a course which appears to be application of "one man justice" 20:22, 21 June 2009.

Warnings regarding Daedalus969
  1. User:Lar: "The upshot here in my view is that everyone ought to try to get along better. Jack, stop trying to get a rise out of Dae. Dae, continue to work on being more collegial, more mellow, and not overreacting to input emember what I told you to say: "Thanks for the input, I will carefully consider it..." 15:59, 5 July 2009.
    On User_talk:Lar Lar says to Jack: "I see you offering to give Jay pointers. Is that wise? I think you need to not interact with Daedalus969 at all... best to steer clear of situations that are high drama." 16:36, 3 June 2009
  2. User:Lar: Jack... Just some advice. While you may well be within policy to remove things from your talk page, it's not really a very friendly way to handle messages... you may find it better to neutrally say "thanks for the input, I will consider it carefully" and leave the message, instead of sparring with others with snarky removal summaries as you've been doing with Dae. Try not to let people get your goat. In some cases that is exactly what they want. Don't give them the satisfaction (or the ammo to use later). I've suggested to Dae that their approach isn't likely to be effective. Hope that helps. 16:20, 31 May 2009.
  3. User:Lar: Ok, digging around to try to find the backstory, I got a chance to read some of the posts to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech around (before and after) this one. You both leave the impression that you need to grow up. "Sneers", "Jeers", "What the hell is your problem" ???? Completely inappropriate. You both know better. Knock it off. 16:45, 31 May 2009.


Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
One year block per "User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing...Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator."
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Currently working on a section showing how Jack Merridew's attacks against editors who question his disruptive editing, stalking, and harassment since his unblock, are identical in tone to the comments of his socks, Moby Dick, etc. before Jack Merridew's indefinite block.
A more minor issue, is how Jack Merridew has repeatedly glamorized his sockpuppet past.
RE:Superseded concern, see talk page link.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Contacted Jack Merridew.

Casliber's assessment

Casliber: I think a great deal of you and your approaches in general, but I think you've seriously missed the mark here, and have been missing it in this matter for some time. In my view, David has been hounded and baited the entire year of his return by persons who do not wish him well, and who, in more than one case, exhibit serious problematic behaviors themselves. Your assessment that David hasn't shown he can be a productive member of this community and needs further mentoring seems wrong. David (Jack Merridew) is not perfect, none of us are, but he is by far not the problematic editor here. You cite Ikip's "summary" (quotation marks deliberate). No reasonable person should give Ikip any credence in this matter, and no reasonable person will. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Lar, your continued defense of Jack Merridew's personal attacks and stalking has already been partially documented, and will be developed further for community wide discussion if necessary.
Keep in mind that the above compiled evidence, of the 26 warnings Jack has received since he was taken off of his indefenete block, 4 are warnings even from yourself, telling Jack to:
"stop trying to get a rise out of Dae",
"I think you need to not interact with Daedalus969 at all",
"sparring with others with snarky removal summaries",
"You both leave the impression that you need to grow up. "Sneers", "Jeers", "What the hell is your problem" ???? Completely inappropriate."
At the least, there was an issue with Daedalus969 which warranted such warnings?
I also note that you that you make no effort to refute the huge list of edit diffs from the past year.
Ikip (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Your assessment of matters is so patently one sided, and therefore incomplete and inaccurate, that it's not worthy of further consideration. No reasonable person will give it any credence. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
With respects Lar, "reasonable" is a very subjective term. That said, I consider myself to be reasonable and feel that the Ikip summary has enough credence as to show his real concerns. Pardon my comparison, but in a hearing, the prosecution presents their evidence and the defense presents theirs and tries to refutes that of the prosecution. And in a hearing, those bringing forth concerns are not mandated to refute their own evidences.... that's for the defense. And though noting that any such defense might itself appear to some to be one-sided in Jack's favor, as you feel the indictment against him appears, I am still interested in an actual refutation of the Ikip summary's many pieces of evidence... rather than just reading your suggestion that "no reasonable person will give it any credence." Reasonable is as reasonable does. Again, my respects... Schmidt, 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I stand by my assessment. This isn't a trial. It's not even a parole hearing. It is an evaluation of a mentorship. Ikip, in my view, gives every appearance of someone who has an axe to grind and is more a part of the problem than a part of the solution. I don't have to refute him line by line to form an evaluation of his one sided ness. Citing me pointing out that David is imperfect while glossing over the hounding and provocation that David himself receives is sufficient in itself to refute Ikip without my needing to do anything further. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree Lar... this talk page is for evaluating the mentorship and whether it was successful or a failure. If it is determined that Jack did not benefit from mentorship, the provided diffs could shed light on how and where it failed. I note that the evidence as compiled by Ikip was first presented at Arbitration Request for Enforcement but was moved here when that discussion was closed without action... likely because a related discussion here was already in existance. That move does not invalidate Ikip's concerns, nor in any way indicate that they should somehow be automatically discounted. If they are not allowed to be discussed here, even with the light they might shed on a perceived failure or success at efforts at mentorship, that disallowment might then be seen as a reason to re-open Ikip's original Request for Enforcement and let it proceed. The provided diffs do not appear to be fabricated, and extending your metaphor... if Ikip is seen as having an axe to grind, it might be then be seen by some that Jack was the one supplying the whetstone and grinding wheel (again, only an extension of Lar's metaphor). If you do not feel this is the venue for discussion of Ikip's concerns, then perhaps his RFE should be reopened and his evidences moved back to what would then is the correct venue. And with respects, there are many editors in Ikip's diffs of Jack's edits. I find it hard to believe that they might all be involved in some sort of conspiracy to bait him. It takes two to tango... and Jack had been invited back to Misplaced Pages under some very strict conditions. If his actions have mitigation, it would be beter to show how he was justified in violating Arbcom's parole, rather than be dismssive of Ikip's message simply because of its messenger. Schmidt, 04:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Michael, there is a rather large assumption contained in your phrase "it would be beter to show how he was justified in violating Arbcom's parole".   pablohablo. 09:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for that perception, but that assumptiom was borrowed from Lar and his stating "the hounding and provocation that David himself receives", with its implication that Jack's negative interactions with other editors as set out in the Ikip summary were either taken out of context or were somehow justified in their seeming violation of the ArbCom accords. And no, I have not personally had any negative interactions with Jack, and have seen some decent editing, yes, but I am also aware that he was unbanned only after a great deal of ArbCom discussion and with some serious behavorial restrictions. If the Ikip summary, however selective Lar feels it is, shows a pattern that is at odds with the ArbCom caveats, my thought here is that either the behavior pattern be disproven or it be discussed. And if it is not to be discussed here in relationship to a mentorship, then let it be taken back to the forum from whence it came. Schmidt, 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. Ikip does tend to present his opinions as fact, and I read your comment as doing the same thing.   pablohablo. 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The diffs are the diffs... themselves niether fact nor fiction... simply existing as records of interaction between numerous editors. Dismissing all out of hand because thet were provided by Ikip does not address the possibility that they may show a unacceptable trend. A worry here is that when anyone is given specific conditions for being allowed back to edit, the returning editor might do his best to avoid any edit that might be perceived as a violation of that conditional return... and be specially mindful of advice, cautions, or warnings from his mentors or from other admins. I would be quite happy to see a refutation of the diffs in the Ikip summary... but not because of the messenger, but because the summary and diffs were incorrect. Casliber's comment below to Lar is quite sensible. Schmidt, 21:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Lar, the key piece(s) of evidence required then would be to link up the various dust-ups listed by Ikip above with immediate antecedents showing where Jack Merridew had been baited. This would be a big step forward. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

One (or more) of my posts below continues this - you're missing the point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
We're missing the point? ... You've been missing the point since at least August if not before... when A Nobody Ikip complains about Jack and tries to claim harassment, it's rebutted handily. When you blithely asked what the problem was "I just had a quick look at A Nobody's talk page and history - I don't recall hearing about anyone else unrelated to all this complaining about his conduct recently, unless I am missing something (?)" you got several respondents giving you plenty of diffs... your entire response was "noted.". I guess we should have realised then what a poor job of mentoring you were doing, but we let it slide. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
'atta boy Lar, keep digging. Remember this is all on record. What the diffs that Ikip has provided above need is specific antecedents - anything else more distant looks like grudge-holding. You and Protonk derailing this and not considering that there is anything more specific to address the issue of (a) an editor banned for stalking, with (b) diffs suggesting similar behaviour above...well if you stand by that and think that some indignant bluster or deflection onto another editor is sufficient then so be it. I stand by my position, you stand by yours. You're right, I am not impartial, but then again, neither are you, so let's see what some impartial people think shall we? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
At last you admit you're not impartial. Some progress anyway. When you admit you were a crappy mentor too, then we'll be getting somewhere. I can be Jack's friend and still give him feedback about what he needs to change. You, on the other hand, are apparently completely blind to Ikip and A Nobody, et al, and the hatchet job they've been doing. For shame. ++Lar: t/c 07:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Drafting arb's comments one year later

Last year I made the decision to offer a motion that allowed JM to return to editing after I monitored his edits cross 2 or 3 wikis for several months for problematic conduct towards WC and general quality of contributions. The arbitration committee agreed to let him return with restrictions. Overall, I've been pleased with the outcome.

  • The editing restrictions I wrote were tough, the toughest ever given at the time. They were intended to prevent stalking of WC and yet allow JM to return as a contributor.
  • I looked through the diff provided on this page as evidence of stalking/hounding/harassment. Most were very dated. And I'm not seeing stalking similar to that that caused problems with WC. So I deem this aspect of the mentoring a success. IMO, he has never come close to having any conduct that was close to needing the one year block. I think that he has shown himself to be a reformed user and the one year block provision should not be applicable now.
  • It is true that JM can have a flair for expressing himself in a manner that bothers people that disagree with him. But that is the case for many users. Reminders and redacting comments have been effective so far this year. I see this as the path forward based on the evidence that I'm seeing now. So going forward, the disruptive editor clause would be dropped and JM would have the same expectation on him as all other editors.
  • Perhaps moving to an informal mentorship with suggested editing guidelines would be a good transition step back to editing without restrictions.
  • JM is one of many editors that disagree about article deletion. I think that issues related to this would be best addressed in a broader RFC or RFArb where all the involved parties are on equal footing instead of JM being singled out because of his history.

These are my observations based on my review so far. Subject to change if other information is provided that shows a better way to keep JM here as a productive editor. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Terima kasih ;) Jack Merridew aka david 11:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"Most were very dated."
Admin: Fram, 15:36, 19 November 2009:
"So anyone still believes that is not following A Nobody around, when the only AfD comments in is one A Nobody is heavily editing, the only RfA edits is one A Nobody opposes, and one of the five last articles edited is one where A Nobody had commented on the talk page only 3 hours before? That's three out of Jack Merridew's last eight visited pages where he commented very shortly after A Nobody had edited them..."
Regarding the similarities between the stalking and harrassment of White Cat and the stalking and harrassment of these current editors, I will post a table later. After all, it was White Cat's plea to Jimbo Wales, showing his extensive graph in 2008, which finally made Arbcom take notice. Ikip (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it really true that he only edits RFA's and AFD's involving a nobody? That seems unlikely. Looking at your difs we have "Delete as synthesis per DGG and others, sincerely""Support. A reasonable editor, nuff said. Nod at animate" and a removal of a reference to Count Chocula from the article Comparison of vampire traits (jack's edit summary did refer to the good count's addition as "trolling" however). I honestly don't see a problem here. Certainly no evidence of disruption or harassment.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
From my evaluation of JM edits, he does not come to WP to stalk and harass these users. An user's contribution are made public so that editors can look at/monitor the work of other editors. Doing this is not in and of itself a problem. It happens every day with the vast majority of editors occasionally checking up on the edits of other people. JM himself has been the subject of this type of monitoring by people that were not his mentors. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It is worth bearing in mind the repeated attempts of A Nobody and Ikip to make the most of the Arbcom sanctions to re-apply Merridew's community ban. These include, but are not limited to this inconclusive timesink where A Nobody seemed to think that the restrictions viz White Cat also applied to him/her; Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/A Nobody, which Ikip attempted to refocus on Merridew, and Ikip's diff blizzard "evidence" on this page.   pablohablo. 20:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
RE: "where A Nobody seemed to think that the restrictions viz White Cat also applied to him/her"
"User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing." Pablo, where in this sentence does this say White Cat?
Even during that ANI Pablo brings up, as DGG state, Mr. Merridew continued to stalk A Nobody's edits. This behavior is exactly the same as when Mr. Merridew stalked White Cat's edits before, which the arbcom ruled unanimously was stalking and harrassment.
Its a "blizzard" Pablomismo because Jack continues to stalk and harrass editors. Note how none of Mr. Merridew's supporters discuss any of the evidence presented, how can defend stalking like this or Merridew calling editors "little shite"? Since his unblock in December 2008, on twenty six occasions editors warned Jack to stop.
Ikip (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There you go again, Ikip - you are seeming to take the 'harrasment' as read. As far your comments on as A Man in Black go, I'm surprised, but I suggest you take that to my talk page, (or yours) as it would be an unnecessary diversion.   pablohablo. 21:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Ikip, I was the one that used the words "little shit behavior", Jack toned down my comment by using the word "shite". I'm surprised you have a problem with that. You should be crying for sanctions against me not Jack. - Josette (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Merridew was actively stalking Dae, which even your husband warned him about 4 times. It seems you were feeding the fire, calling the editor a little shit, in which Jack called the editor a little shite. Not exactly something I would be proud of. Ikip (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Now, now, you forgot the word 'behavior' after 'little shit'. That was an important word for you to leave out of my original statement. If you are going to insult me at least quote me correctly. - Josette (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Jack's full quote:
little shite like .
Ikip (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That was just Jack asking me if that's who I was referring to. At the time there were issues with that editor's behavior. That editor has since apologized and changed his ways. You obviously don't understand the history of that situation. You misrepresented the conversation and took things out of context. - Josette (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
At the time, there were issues with my behavior, in regards to that notorious edit on one of Giano's userpages, not my behavior as a whole, as you wrongly construe. In fact, I believe it is impossible to misrepresent the conversation in such a regard. He referred to my altering of one of my own comments as little shite behavior. On an aside note, there is nothing wrong with doing what I did there. I did not make the comment on my user talk page, I made it on his, and changing his copy of my comment to reflect that is not out of line. Back on topic, using shite instead of shit does not tone down anything; It's the same damn word, but UK and Ireland's spelling, unless of course you were referring to the move performed in a particular martial arts style, but I very much doubt that. Now, commenting on behavior, and giving it a label, is still the same as directly calling an editor a little shit. It's in the way of saying, behavior that a perpetrates. Indeed, you and jack called me a little shit, nothing was mis-represented.— dαlus 06:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you can't even own up to your own comments.— dαlus 06:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me if I haven't been clear. I take full responsibility for all the comments on my talk page. It was me - not Jack - who called you that. I did feel your behavior at the time was quite bad. I remember you being warned many times to change your ways - at one point you acknowledged it and I feel you have changed. I'm not trying to dodge anything. If you have an issue with me please take it somewhere else. - Josette (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jo; you would be looking for this statement where he really was quite sorry that he got into one of teh wiki's major dramas. Ever posted to his talk page? Nope. His editnotice offers "Please also note that I have a problem with Perseveration" — which pretty much seems to mean he will be constantly leaving patches of equine hemoglobin soaked ground littered with shards of shattered fibrous plant material *everywhere*. I, for one, don't think Dae's changed much and I stand by my humour. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Ikip, I drafted the motion so I know what it was intended to do. The clause about disruptive editing was a general reminder to edit with in policy guideline and not cause disruption on articles or their talk pages. For A Nobody to cause a fuss, and then complain about JM being disruptive was not what the clause was intended to cover. He is not someone doing pov pushing through edit wars. He is not someone that is adding copyright violations to articles. He is not someone that making problematic article content edits. He is not any more disruptive than dozens of people that frequent deletion discussion and regularly disagree with each other. I'm assuming good faith that you simple misunderstood and that this was not being use as a way to eliminate someone that disagrees with you. But now that I've told you, you need to drop these attempts to enforce the one year ban for conduct that is seen every day in many discussions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Your statment "way to eliminate someone that disagrees with you" is a subtle way about how you feel my role is in this.
I also recognize your subtle comments about A Nobody. It is okay to stalk and harrass someone if they do "pov pushing through edit wars"? This makes Mr. Merridew stalking and harrassment acceptable? This explanation does not take into account that there were three editors Mr. Merridew stalked (the most grevious being Mr. Coleman).
FloNight, you have decided all of the evidence against Mr. Merridew does not warrant further action, and have instead made subtle deragatory comments at both A Nobody and I?
Since December 2008, Jack has been warned 26 times, and his mentors, beyond counseling him to stop, have not proceeded to act beyond this.
So now these same mentors and the arbcom who drafted the rules for him, allowing him to be unbanned will be the first to decide whether he is unbanned, heavily influencing the other arbcoms decision? Ikip (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The point of the editing restrictions was not to stop him from voicing his opinion about other editors. It seems to me that the mentors were being very cautious in their counseling and reminders to him. As well, as happened in several instances, the claims of harassment and stalking were shown to be exaggerated claims by the person making the complaint. Because of the situation that JM was in, he needed to bear these false reports with decorum to avoid the situation spiraling out of control and him ending up blocked for one year for disruption. As I've already said, the garden variety editing disputes should not be actioned with a one year ban. Several people disagreed with his return from the start and they have not made it easy for him. We need to acknowledge that he has done as well in staying out of trouble that was clearly an one sided problem. I have voted to reblock numerous returning users if it did not work out for them to return. And would do so with JM if there were serious concerns. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thank you for your comments. We will agree to disagree. Ikip (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Flo, I did not at the time think that "The clause about disruptive editing was a general reminder to edit with in policy guideline and not cause disruption on articles or their talk pages. " I saw it as others did, a warning that any repeat of similar behavior would be met with very strong action. There have been repeats of similar behavior--many of them. None of them is individually outrageous. He does not bait me or you--he baits those susceptible to it, and is, I must admit, very skilled at this. Put together, the various diffs are enough to show that the mentorship has failed and that Jack will continue to try to push the boundaries as far as he possibly can. They show enough of a pattern to indicate that he is playing games with the ruling. I think in fairness to the community that the pattern is a serious concern. I urge you to look at them again as a series of attempts to enjoy his games at others' expense as long as he can. They're not set against a background of previous good behavior. I don;t think I've ever spoken this way on or off wiki about an editor here, but I recognise the pattern of what I can only call deliberate delinquency. Others may be misguided or reckless, but he is the only editor active in Misplaced Pages who I feel certain is acting in deliberate bad faith. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
One mans bad faith is another mans partisanship dgg. Unlike you, i feel that ikip is acting in deliberate bad faith. Maybe a few others. The "revert revert revert" guys. Or the guys who encourage deliberate "passive aggresiveness" guys. Or the guys who organize their behaviors off line to get their opponents to break the rulz guys. Or the ones who spend months (vergeing on years) to get their opponents. I'm probably talking about behaviors that don't exist. Or that you have never seen and never will. But I'm quite amazed that with all your wiki wizadry (you have a vorpal sword by now, right? If not, i know a good sweat shop in shenzen) you've only ever noticed one editor on all of wikipedia who acts in "deliberate bad faith." I mean, it could be we're seeing a group of organized partisans targeting a perceived opponent. In my fevered brain, it might be that it's a rather transparent attempt to purge the ideologically unsound. But you, you see only a group of righteous people defending the truth. You must be right. Nay. You are right. How could you be wrong? You are one of the heros. You are truly blessed. Forgive me for not seeing the right, the true, the way of the blessed. I am truly flawed. Peccavi.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
DGG: I have worked with Jack closely since well before he was unbanned here at en:wp. We've communicated fairly extensively, and I've been counseling him behind the scenes for a long time, as has John Vandenberg. In that time, I've come to know Jack pretty well, about as well as you can know someone without meeting them face to face, and I've come to consider him a friend, as has my wife. I think your judgment of his character is very wrong. Judging character is not easy, and we are none of us perfect at it. In fact I've been played here on the wiki before, but I'll stake my judgment against yours. You have, I believe, severely misjudged him and done him a great disservice. ++Lar: t/c 09:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
DGG, that clause is put into the motion to cover other types of disruptive editing besides the original problem. If JM came back and was uploading images with copy right violations, or began editing warring on article, or other similar serious types of problematic conduct then the arbitration committee would swiftly block him instead of letting the usual dispute resolutions process happen. As for the other, I see it as a 2 way street with other editors being aggressive in the way that they approach JM. Your statement is an example of this since your comment "Others may be misguided or reckless, but he is the only editor active in Misplaced Pages who I feel certain is acting in deliberate bad faith." is pretty far over the top. From my communication with JM, I'm certain that he believes that he is helping the wiki through his contributions. His reason for editing is as benevolent as yours is. I don't think you said this to deliberately bait JM, but consider how hard it to stay civil when someone is completely misrepresenting your contribution record. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Jack is sufficiently astute that i doubt he will be surprised or horrified at what I said. I've never seen the need to bait anyone; I just wait with my eyes open. I have no reason to doubt he is an excellent person in all respects outside Misplaced Pages (& some in Misplaced Pages also) He's clever enough that I might well like him in some other context--I like things interesting. And Ikip, I said he was the only one I was certain about. We are all saying, of course, that it is not we who are judging ideologically, but the person on Misplaced Pages (outside the NYC chapter) I personally like the most is what I'd consider an arrant deletionist. He doesn't try to trap the susceptible--he's just wrong about some things. I now go back to my corner in the background, convinced again that any arb page is one to avoid. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
He may believe that he is helping Misplaced Pages through his actions, but then his mentors or friends should step in and tell him that often, he is not helping Misplaced Pages at all. You don't help Misplaced Pages by baiting other potential problem editors, and the pattern of Jack Merridew following around some editors and editing against them (voting the opposite, removong things the other wants to keep, ...) is obvious for everyone not too close with Jack. While the individual edits are harmless or positive, the way they are performed (his choice of pages to edit) is not harmless or positive, but is a conscious or subconscious process of angering others. The ANI discussions earlier this year, while not reaching any final decision, where good evidence that many uninvolved editors felt that there was a serious problem. This does not mean that the other side (A Nobody, Ikip, ...) is an innocent victim, but the problems they may or may not cause are not the focus of the current discussion, unless it can be found that they are actively seeking out, baiting, tempting Jack Merridew. Signatures like the one he used today are not really evidence of "helping the wiki through his contributions" or benevolent editing. Considering that he was not the subject of that talk page discussion makes his "contributions" even less helpful. I know tha he had edited that talk page before, so it is not evidence of following A Nobody or anyone else around, but it looks as if remarks by the A Nobody / Ikip tag team work on him as a red rag on a bull, and he just can't constrain himself. If you couple that with him actively looking for contribs by A Nobody, then you get a recipe for disaster. I believe that every editor would do well to avoid other editors if a number of uninvolved people have asked to do so (as had been asked of Jack Merridew wrt A Nobody in earlier ANI discussions). Fram (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
As I stated already, "JM is one of many editors that disagree about article deletion. I think that issues related to this would be best addressed in a broader RFC or RFArb where all the involved parties are on equal footing instead of JM being singled out because of his history." I see this as something much bigger that needs to be addressed in a more systemic way. I anticipate that this will be addressed through a broad case sometime because their is a limit to people's ability to tolerate this dispute. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for other people, but I'm not singling him out because of his past, I'm singling him out because of his current actions, and the fact that he has a past makes them just worse (because he should be well aware of the consequences of such actions). And his replies of yesterday on Pablo's talk page have very little to do with "disagreeing about article deletion", they are simply continuing a problem he has with some editors in an unrelated discussion. This is considered unacceptable for most other editors, so I don't see why it would be allright for Jack MLerridew to do so. I do notivce that your post was very general, avoiding even the discussion of individual edits. That makes it pretty useless to provide any diffs. Fram (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that JM necessarily needs to be re-banned. However, I'm also not convinced that there necessarily should be changes to the current applicable remedies. Of course, this is subject to change upon further review, but that's what I considered when reviewing it so far. In other words, Casliber's summary seems to voice my opinion more effectively. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
My feeling from watching over the past year is that a course to a flareup runs as follows - Jack sees behaviour he disagrees with, gets annoyed and decides to take some form of action which flies a short distance under the radar. My recollection of the antecedents of the flareups listed by Ikip was (I believe) some AfD or RfA debates where A Nobody had expressed his opinion. We are all well aware that A Nobody's actions have annoyed some editors, thus Jack took it upon himself to make it personal. (i.e. this was not specific baiting by AN to JM). This is problematic. Bigtime. There are editors whose actions I find annoying at times, but it is not my place to go and start brushfires with them, and especially after lengthy sanctions for misconduct. Many here are commenting from a stance from where it is difficult to tease out other influences.
Ultimately wiping away explanations etc. look at what Ikip's evidence makes it out - an editor banned for stalking engages in periods of mini-stalking which upsets other editors during a period of probation. Regardless of reasons why, it doesn't look good as is above. Hence my request that for the record, those defending Jack need to put up the evidence to show baiting. This needs to be for the record so that someone reading this in a years' time can figure out why mentorship was dropped or whatever. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Look I don't disagree w/ the merits of Cas's statement. JM has more problems than the average editor, and he has some exceptionally troubling habits wrt debate and discussion. I'm a little shocked that Cas can't extricate his feelings about AN in order to write his summary. That we are even considering evidence brought up by Ikip is on face evidence that baiting/retaliation exists in this stupid little war. Was the AN RfC not enough? The bulk of the talk page was devoted to how bad Jack was, despite Jack's notable absence until the very end, when some editors took it upon themselves to gather a great hue and cry about his mere participation. It appears that we have managed to drive Jack away. This bodes poorly for the fate of the standard offer in general. Protonk (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(sigh) my point was there were/are a number of other editors exasperated with AN, and that given Jack's history of stalking it was not his place to do anything about it. As far as I recall, none of ANs posts immediately preceding some of the above flare-ups were aimed specifically at Jack. if they were these need to be illustrated to amend the above for the claim of specific baiting. I am trying to keep this focussed on Jack. I too am sad that he has decided to go rather than rise above this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, Jack has shown a tremendous willingness to eat bowl after bowl of shit. So he may well return. But if you require overall net positives to the project to wear scarlet letters indefinitely, and far more problematic users are allowed to run wild, then eventually editors like Jack will get fed up and leave. That's not the end of the world, but that's the reality. (Jack if you're paying attention still -- take the time to learn Indonesian, will ya?)Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm unsure what merited the sigh. When Ikip turned AN's RfC talk page into an interminable rant about JM, Jack handn't participated in the RfC (Note the date in the deletion log for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jack Merridew, as a bright line measure). In fact, he only participated at the very end, leaving signatures on summaries he agreed with. For doing so he received an immediate and blustery block threat. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
A sigh echoes my exasperation with this whole process. Protonk, the unblock was highly controversial. Note that many many editors edit for years without warnings, arguments or whatever. We really needed to see something a little smoother than this. Note that I am not advocating a rebanning, just that the year to date resulted in a number of flare-ups, which needed others to cool things down. Agree with Bali Ultimate about Jack learning some bahasa :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Protonk, if you are referring to another "immediate and blustery block threat" (not a post made by me), then you may ignore this. However, I have the feeling that you do refer to my actions, but that you recall the incident incorrectly. I have warned Jack to stop commenting on A Nobody after he did so in the KWW RfA. When he made clear that he would ignore my warning, I made it clear that I would block him if he continued. Moreschi was the first to think that the RfC had anything to do with my warning, but as I replied and as the editing times prove, I warned him before he edited the RfC, and he just happened to go to the RfC right after my warning to leave A Nobody alone. So please retract the claim that an immediate and blustery block threat was issued for leaving signatures on summaries on an RfC: he received first a warning, then a block threat, and these were both not for the RfC endorsements, but for his comments at the RfA and for indicating that he would not head the warning. Fram (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of userpages

What is the sudden deletion of all his user pages about? Of course he has technically the right to do so, but why now? And shouldn't his socks be listed somewhere on his userpage, per the unblock restrictions #2? Deleting his user page and User:Jack Merridew/Sock drawer is a violation of that restriction. Is he leaving? Fram (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you and Ikip have succeeded in hounding him off the wiki. ++Lar: t/c 11:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't hound him. If he can't stand the result of his own actions and the fact that the support of a few loyal defenders may not be sufficient, then that's his problem, not mine. I have not followed him to articles or discussions. I have proposed my solution in existing discussions on his behaviour (ANI), warned him of the problems with his actions, and discussed them with one of his mentors when people preferred that course of action over direct contact with him. I have not participated in the discussions about him on the A Nobody RfC or elsewhere (if any) apart from the cases I just mentioned. Fram (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with that assessment. Your actions were not balanced, although to be fair you certainly didn't hound him the way Ikip has. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Balanced in what way? If you mean that I didn't take the same actions about e.g. A Nobody and Ikip as I did about Jack Merridew, that's mainly because I am often an active opponent of them in all kinds of disputes (content related, but also policy discussions or ARS discussions), and I don't want any admin-related actions I take (like warning people that they I may block them for their actions) to be possibly tainted by such positions (being an "inbolved" admin). I have no such situation with Jack Merridew, with him and me most often being on the same side of a content dispute. Since I have problems with some of his conduct without being otherwise an "opponent" (on the contrary, most of his conduct issues, both past and current, are with people I very often disagree with), I am correctly placed to look solely at the conduct and see where it severely lacks. I don't have the same position when it comes to the conduct of Ikip, A Nobody, ... Ifyou meant something else by "not balanced", please clarify. Fram (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Casliber's request remains unanswered:
"Hence my request that for the record, those defending Jack need to put up the evidence to show baiting. This needs to be for the record so that someone reading this in a years' time can figure out why mentorship was dropped or whatever."
I would be interested to see edit diffs showing how I hounded Mr. Merridew. 99% of my interactions with Mr. Merridew have been like Fram's and Casliber's, warning him to leave an editor alone. Ikip (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a pseudonym, so you can drop the false gentility. Protonk (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
nice tool, bainer;

My en:accounts:

I would like the older user page histories deleted; tag and categorize the pages, Jack too, as needed. Some already are deleted, most are blocked. Only Jack, Davenbelle, Moby Dick and Diyarbakir have much in their history. Jack Merridew 06:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have failed to disclose an old account (this was not intentional, but feel free); I just noticed B9171457-dac8-4884-b393-15b471d5f07e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which I expect was me. It's long blocked and if it was me, the password was another GUID; anyway, I can't log into it. I created the Hasankeyf article and I edited it further with a sockpuppet, User:Moby Dick, who is blocked as having 'No useful contributions' — unless, of course, you're a Turkish woman who's been threatened by her relatives. —Jack Merridew 07:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Franamax

Since I'm mentioned in passing, I get to talk. :) My interaction with JM was in relation to his dealings with editor EHC. EHC at the time needed some monitoring and interaction as they weren't fully grasping all the wiki-concepts. Nevertheless I didn't feel that JM was the best person to be doing the explaining and I perceived a pattern of following rather than reviewing edits of. I cautioned JM and they acquiesced immediately. As far as I'm concerned, JM complied fully when notified (2 edits a month later and nothing since, whatever).

In the larger sense, Jack has done lots of good gnomish work since returning. Project-space comments and inter-editor relations seem to be on the sharp side of the scale and could use ongoing attention. Undue concentration on a single editor at times, seems to be an ongoing concern. With all due respect to Ikip and A Nobody, it's not like the two of you don't often get into arguments with others, so I am discounting a little bit. JM seems to be doing good work and netting out positive.

This all may be too late anyway, but it would be disappointing to see JM just disappear. I'd favour continuing but somewhat relaxed restrictions. Franamax (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

new articles

Here is a list of articles created by Jack Merridew in the last 12 months. There may be more. John Vandenberg 08:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. Puputan 1681 views in 200908, inc 750 in a single day. And yet someone in another camp tagged it to be merged.
  2. I Gusti Ngurah Rai
  3. Marga, Tabanan
  4. Padangtegal
  5. Padang Tegal
  6. Mamuju Regency
  7. Mamuju (disambiguation)
  8. Kerobokan
  9. Pejeng
  10. Batuan, Bali - rescued
  11. W.O.J. Nieuwenkamp
  12. Musca vetustissima
  13. Elizabeth A. Widjaja
  14. List of rivers of Rwanda
  15. List of rivers of Burundi
  16. Rivers of Kenya
  17. List of lakes in Kenya
  18. List of rivers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
  19. List of rivers of the Republic of the Congo
  20. List of rivers of Gabon
  21. List of rivers of Mozambique
  22. List of rivers of Algeria
  23. List of rivers of Malawi
  24. List of rivers of Equatorial Guinea
  25. List of rivers of Angola
  26. List of rivers of the Central African Republic
  27. List of rivers of Cameroon
  28. Pura Ulun Danu Bratan
  29. Bacon, egg and cheese sandwich - 1300 pageviews; averages over 1000 pageviews per month
  30. At Play in the Fields of the Lord (novel)
  31. Pura Dalem Agung Padangtegal
  32. Bima Regency
  33. West Lombok Regency
  34. East Lombok Regency
  35. Central Lombok Regency
  36. Dompu Regency
  37. Sumbawa Regency
  38. West Sumbawa Regency

The GodKing has opined

not specifically on this, but it covers the whole ball game:

My position, which I have held for quite some time, is that when we are excessively tolerant of toxic behaviors, we poison the environment and push good people to join in the bad behaviors — they end up with no other choice.

— Jimbo Wales

This was previously quoted by me ;)

I, of course, am one of the good people. Most of those I've had conflict with have been quite problematic, and have ended-up gone. The wiki is better for it. The wiki will be better off without those currently seeking to nail my hide to a boxcar door as it rolls off into the sunset. Their fate is not tied to mine; they are known issues, and their doom awaits them.

Jack Merridew 14:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Umm...right. Can we drop the sabre-rattling now? I am sorry that I wasn't more sycophantic or glowing Jack. I think I will unwatch this page now as I'd rather go and do something more productive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
He's hardly talking about you. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Gee, you reckon? I know that. I know who he means. As said above, there are plenty of others involved in that debate already. Jack's being involved there adds nothing and raises problems. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Let it all out. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
@Casliber: I get the sense that as a mentor to Jack, you've failed, utterly. More than once, you weren't there for him when he came to you seeking help, and now you're lashing out at others instead of facing up to your failings as a mentor. Misplaced Pages didn't need you to be sycophantic but it did need you to listen with an open mind, and get involved when your help was requested, instead of blessing destructive behaviors of others. You were an enabler of the hounding that Jack's received. I'm not going to waste my time providing diffs, because there are examples aplenty right here on this page. And on your talk page. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
IF Jack can be convinced to discontinue this pointless storming about blanking pages and posting block buttons, and return here, which is very much in doubt, and IF the decision is taken that he should continue to have a mentorship, whether informal or formal, I think it's very clear that you have no place in any such arrangement. ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving ;) They're just user pages; and one mop-bit. The formal mentorship expires in, what, two weeks? I'm fine with an informal mentorship on an indefinite basis; I'll listen to those that make sense (as should all; meant to be read both ways;). As Moreschi said, you'll have my ear. I am, however, not willing to be tied to the fucking pillory beyond Dec 9. That's what I meant by a "designated target". That's what the block links mean, and what the 'doesn't care' means. I'm open to a variety of solutions to this shite, including battering their heads on the rock of RFAR. If there are other options, great, but this has to end. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Lar, the community still waits for evidence of hounding that Jack has received. Jack provided my full edit diffs in a RFC, with no explanation, but you have provided nothing. Ikip (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Provide evidence of hounding of Jack? You're doing a fine enough job of that yourself. ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Like Ikip's sabre-rattling for a year-block? And sycophantic would more aptly apply to A Nobody's gang that can't !vote-keep straight. The plenty of others line has been tried on me before re White Cat (oops). And guess what? No one did anything, just as no one's doing anything about A Nobody and his horde of proxies harassing me. Cas, you've had a COI all along, here. A Nobody's your friend, you find my participation in AFD infuriating (guess you still hold that hot Sunday in your garage hunting for old D&D magazines against me). I'm going to write a longer statement, but I'm on handphone, ATM, and it's low on pulsa. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
RE:
And guess what? No one did anything, just as no one's doing anything about A Nobody and his horde of proxies harassing me.
User:Moby Dick (Sock puppet of Jack Merridew) to User:White Cat:
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick#Statement_by_Moby
"...User:Cool Cat and his friends are defining stalking as making reasonable edits to articles that he happens to not like....It is User:Cool Cat who is stalking, harassing..." 11:20, 6 June 2006.
Ikip (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Ikip; have a Happy Thanksgiving? Have I called you a troll, lately? You *are*. See you at RFAR. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 04:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
As User:Jack Merridew, 10:15, 29 March 2008: "Firstly, I am not a sockpuppet, as White Cat has repeatedly alleged. He has asserted this many, many times and, quite frankly, I'm now viewing it as harassment." Ikip (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Trolls everywhere

Some people strut around Misplaced Pages with big red buttons on their foreheads, labelled "Do Not Press". I have occasionally succumbed to temptation and pressed someone's button, just to watch the explosion. I guess that makes me a troll.

My impression of Jack is that he is a useful, constructive editor, whose resistance to the big red button is lower than mine. Flaunt your button at Jack for long enough, and he'll give it a jab for sure. I guess that makes Jack a troll too.

But what galls me reading this, is that no-one seems to have noticed that the biggest trolls of all are the people who strut around Misplaced Pages flaunting their buttons, yearning for explosion.

Cas's point is well-taken: all the evidence of this year's mentoring suggests that when Jack sees a button he just has to press it. But there's a counter-point: the evidence also shows that some people just have to explode every month or so, and will go to any length to get someone to set them off, and will continue to do so whether Jack is around or not.

Frankly, I see Jack as the lesser problem here. Jack has demonstrated that he can get along with most people most of the time. Some of Jack's opponents have demonstrated that they can't get along with anyone at all for very long, not even the most good-natured, benignly friendly contributors. If the only people who can't get along with Jack are people who can't get along with anyone, then Ockam's Razor suggests that Jack is not really the problem.

Hesperian 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack's last year

Ya, this *other place* ;) Durova had a blog post a while ago that had a nod at us all having a bit of troll in us. She's a sharp woman with a peck of clue. Notice how the word 'stalker' has crept back into ambient usage here? She was the one who recast that whole bit of toxic terminology as wiki-hounding because it conflates wiki-pissing-matches with real-world criminality; its use is about poisoning the well and demonizing someone. It's all very Manichean and all should read Cyberchiefs. This is all toxic environment stuff and it *must* get sorted out because it's the biggest threat to the projects. My user page currently says 'This sockpuppet does not care' — and it means I will take the block, take another indef (and just go). I will *not* go meekly, I will not be broken on the wheel, and I will call users on their behavior if it is damaging to the project. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
May we have a clerk adjust the terminology, please? "Wikihounding" is much more appropriate. Stalking is a criminal offense and a small number of Wikimedians have actually gone to law enforcement to resolve problems that arose due to our volunteer work here. Metaphoric or figurative use of that word is not a good idea: in the past that use has generated confusion when someone opens an FBI case and other editors mistake the problem for passing onsite irritation. Please replace with "wikihounding". Durova 07:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)